RedRedSuit
Member
Thanks... I can deal with that, as long as there's not much tearing. Better than consoles anyway (recently built PC after consoling it for the entire generation).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anyone considering AC4 on PC BEWARE! Yet another port with terrible optimization!
- Thread starter hlhbk
- Start date
Thanks... I can deal with that, as long as there's not much tearing. Better than consoles anyway (recently built PC after consoling it for the entire generation).
chickdigger802
Banned
i thought people sli'ing 780's can get 60 fps with everything maxed?
For a game thats cross gen and open world and probably rushed as fuck... it holds up pretty well across the scale (ymmv depend on configuration).
Not the best or most optimized port, but you have it easy if you think this is a 'bad port' vs other games lol.
DSO says they're using the "latest drivers" and then provides a screenshot of the 331.65's -- Nvidia released the 331.82 WHQL drivers yesterday, which among other things, are the "game-ready drivers for Assassin's Creed IV."
Obviously they performed the analysis before the 331.82's were released, which begs the question as to why they did a performance review before Nvidia released the proper drivers for the game?
You can't draw proper conclusions about Ubisoft's work when you're on drivers that pre-date the game. The same drivers also improve BF4 performance by up to 18%, and Crysis 3 by up to 26%. It's probably safe to say that performance in AC4 is going to be much better than their test indicates, and will continue to improve with future driver updates.
That's the nature of PC gaming. It's not entirely on the developers; sometimes Nvidia and AMD's driver teams end up being tasked with supporting dozens of new, major titles in the Fall and game-ready drivers fail to be released before the game, and then over the following months performance increases considerably. Future patches to the game will probably help as well.
It'd be nice if everything worked perfectly smoothly on day one, but that's almost never the case (especially in PC gaming, but also increasingly in console gaming).
Obviously they performed the analysis before the 331.82's were released, which begs the question as to why they did a performance review before Nvidia released the proper drivers for the game?
You can't draw proper conclusions about Ubisoft's work when you're on drivers that pre-date the game. The same drivers also improve BF4 performance by up to 18%, and Crysis 3 by up to 26%. It's probably safe to say that performance in AC4 is going to be much better than their test indicates, and will continue to improve with future driver updates.
That's the nature of PC gaming. It's not entirely on the developers; sometimes Nvidia and AMD's driver teams end up being tasked with supporting dozens of new, major titles in the Fall and game-ready drivers fail to be released before the game, and then over the following months performance increases considerably. Future patches to the game will probably help as well.
It'd be nice if everything worked perfectly smoothly on day one, but that's almost never the case (especially in PC gaming, but also increasingly in console gaming).
There has got to be some rig specific problems going around because people with similar hardware are getting varying performance. Running Win 7 with the 331.82 drivers and my performance has been great so far.
Played the game for a few more hours. Still getting a locked 60fps in Havana. Everything max(except shadows on Very High instead of Soft) at 1080p with 2x TXAA.
2500K @ 4.7Ghz
8GB RAM
GTX 780 Ti @1150Mhz
To the guy running a GTX 690, try my settings and let me know how your performance is because we have very similar hardware specs.
I don't think this is a terrible port by any means. Much better than COD:Ghosts, which is a stuttering mess, and NFS: Rivals, which is locked at 30fps.
I don't understand why people expect to run every game day 1 completely maxed out at 60fps, regardless of their hardware. And when a game doesn't maintain this golden standard 100% of the time, it's automatically labeled as shit. It's like they take turning a setting or two down as an affront to their pride.
To those suggesting buying the console version instead, I don't see how that's any better. It doesn't have many of the PC versions features and runs at 30fps with dips. I'm sure any decent PC can run those levels of visuals and framerate without a problem.
Played the game for a few more hours. Still getting a locked 60fps in Havana. Everything max(except shadows on Very High instead of Soft) at 1080p with 2x TXAA.
2500K @ 4.7Ghz
8GB RAM
GTX 780 Ti @1150Mhz
To the guy running a GTX 690, try my settings and let me know how your performance is because we have very similar hardware specs.
I don't think this is a terrible port by any means. Much better than COD:Ghosts, which is a stuttering mess, and NFS: Rivals, which is locked at 30fps.
I don't understand why people expect to run every game day 1 completely maxed out at 60fps, regardless of their hardware. And when a game doesn't maintain this golden standard 100% of the time, it's automatically labeled as shit. It's like they take turning a setting or two down as an affront to their pride.
To those suggesting buying the console version instead, I don't see how that's any better. It doesn't have many of the PC versions features and runs at 30fps with dips. I'm sure any decent PC can run those levels of visuals and framerate without a problem.
That still doesn't excuse this shit port.
thecouncil
Banned
Good to know. I was going to get this on PC. Now I'll get it on PS4... when I get a PS4 sometime next year.
I wanted to just update and say that my issue was in fact with the drivers. I should have checked for updates before posting.
After updating them I can now turn on everything to max (except AA, not really needed at at 2560x1600) and get 55-60 fps all the time with maybe the occasional dip to 50 fps. Game is running great right now for me actually.
After updating them I can now turn on everything to max (except AA, not really needed at at 2560x1600) and get 55-60 fps all the time with maybe the occasional dip to 50 fps. Game is running great right now for me actually.
Even if you have a decent PC this is still the better option.
Went with PS4 version because of this, and because I have a 6950 CF. So in an ideal world, textures and shaders a bit better on PS4 but AF and CPU limited things way better on PC. But with these sloppy optimizations and bad CF support, seems PS4 version is 2x faster, at least until they patch. Doesn't seem to be AC2 level game so I'm willing to deal with console version if it gets me to 20 nm.
With that said, I'm currently waiting for exclusive features to download after inputting 2 codes with a keyboard and logging into Uplay. Feels PC-ish without the customization.
With that said, I'm currently waiting for exclusive features to download after inputting 2 codes with a keyboard and logging into Uplay. Feels PC-ish without the customization.
fluffydelusions
Member
I have 3 AC games on PC and have yet to play any of them
XANDER CAGE
Member
PS4 version is 30fps, solid as a rock (at least, as far as I've seen so far).
And you can run this at a "rock solid" 30FPS on a medium PC if that's your goal.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Apparently not, according to a lot of people in this thread. The optimization might be as bad as COD: Ghosts.
Also sorry to disappoint your scare quotes, but I was referring to the fact that it doesn't dip below 30.
According to most people in this thread, it is a solid 30+ frame rate.
TheCongressman1
Member
One of the joys of PC gaming. At least modders usually fix this kind of stuff.
Thanks Ubisoft.
Thanks Ubisoft.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Runs fine on my 560 ti, as expected it's the perfunctory nvidia shite that devours frames, hbao+ is sweet though so keep that on. God rays high is a massive hit but I've noticed exactly one spot where I saw it, and that was in a tavern with the light shining through the trellis.
ScepticMatt
Member
what hurts me the most is the low CPU utilization (only really 1 core maxed)
It does and look run better than AC2 though.
It does and look run better than AC2 though.
chickdigger802
Banned
people are freaking out that the framerate dips to the low unplayable of 50fps....
Yes you certainly can, if you turn down some settings to console-equivalent. Easily.
I'm even running 55+ fps on mostly high settings, so I'm not sure what other people are complaining about. Yeah it dips slightly below 60 sometimes... so fucking what, it's not a big deal.
Lol yeah, I seriously don't get people like this. They are just ridiculously picky.
XANDER CAGE
Member
You guys are acting like I came in here and said the PS4 version was better looking. I didn't. This is a thread about the PC port being poorly optimized, and someone asked how the console versions performed, and I answered. This has nothing to do with platform dick measuring.
Robert7lee
Neo Member
Just tried the nvidia driver update, didn't make any difference for me it can dip from 60 to 30 using nvidia optimised settings or 62 to 40 with everything set to low and and off with a lot of screen tearing.
1080p @ 60mhz
Gtx titan and fx8350
32 gb ram
1080p @ 60mhz
Gtx titan and fx8350
32 gb ram
Are you talking about Blacklist? That game runs absolute amazing. And it should.. its on the Unreal 2.5 engine :O
I am with a 670, got it maxed at 1080p and locked at 30fps with SMAA. Perfectly happy with that.
It's not even a matter of being picky, they're being absolutely ridiculous.
Developers need to borrow an idea from the condom industry: turn "low" (small) into "medium" (average), "medium" (average) into "high" (big), "high" (big) into "very high" (donkey dong), and "very high".....
Would solve a lot of the complaints about not being able to run a game at 4k 60fps on uber settings across the board. Make people feel better about the settings they're forced to use given their hardware.
We've been here for a while now with settings like Ultra, Max, Enthusiast, Super Duper Ultra Crazy Maximum x3.0 and such above your standard low/med/high/v high settings. Crysis 2 I remember being particularly egregious offender, with the settings running as something like Normal/High/Very High/Ultra and completely doing away with low and medium settings.
Honestly I wish they'd just do away with the stupid sliders altogether and give us back the fine tuning options and leave a "select optimal settings based on your machine" option for people too lazy to do a little bit of research and figure out what does what.
Open your eyes. You're using "PORT" word incorrectly. How can be a bad PORT running at the same framerate with better graphics than PS4 version using similar hardware?
R1CHO uses 1200p (> 1080p), Ev.Quality Very High (> High), +HBAO (> PS4 AO), Soft Shadows (not available in PS4), tessellation in god rays (not available in PS4) and so on running in a single 660GTX with 30 fps.
In any case, ps4 version is a bad port of the original PC version by having lower graphics quality with the same framerate.
You're right, it's not a bad port, but it is a very unoptimized game on the PC and using an engine that wasn't created for newer CPUs with more than 2 cores.
I was able to fix the bigger problem I had, with performance diving into the 40's in Havana by disabling Shadowplay, for some reason that would absolutely kill my Core 0 with 100% usage at all times using anything above the minimal settings. Disabled it and I have some breathing room to work with, but doing quick turns in the cities will still overload the first core and creates dips to 55-56. This creates a very jarring stuttering effect when it happens.
Hoping a patch can fix it, but using ACIII as an example, it is doubtful Ubi will ever get around to fixing it.
I was able to fix the bigger problem I had, with performance diving into the 40's in Havana by disabling Shadowplay, for some reason that would absolutely kill my Core 0 with 100% usage at all times using anything above the minimal settings. Disabled it and I have some breathing room to work with, but doing quick turns in the cities will still overload the first core and creates dips to 55-56. This creates a very jarring stuttering effect when it happens.
Hoping a patch can fix it, but using ACIII as an example, it is doubtful Ubi will ever get around to fixing it.
Well, looking long term it's a good chance this is a problem that's going to be solved next time around due to the fact that if Ubi is ever going to take best advantage of the new systems this gen they're going to have to code in real support for more than 2 cores due to the octocore architecture they both use.
fatgamecat
Member
680 and i7-4770k, both OCed. With the environment set to high and SSAO I get a fairly steady 60. Set environment to very high and HBAO+ and the framerate isn't so great.
So basically beware of tessellation or whatever those settings are doing.
So basically beware of tessellation or whatever those settings are doing.
That fact makes me optimistic. I wonder how their CPU usage looks on the PS4/XBone for this game?
I thought it was confirmed that there was no tessellation in the game?
I thought it was confirmed that there was no tessellation in the game?
fatgamecat
Member
Not exactly sure, something with those settings makes the framerate drop though. Sorry.
I think it's an LOD thing. It's rendering high quality assets further away from your character. I could be wrong though.
That is why I dislike any comparison to console. Consoles are 100% dedicated to the game, whereas nobody checks if some external process is killing your CPU when you play.
"what ? I can not use shadowplay, download like mad in the background, and run my daily anti virus when I play ?"
Very high environmental setting push your line of view very far. You are rendering miles in the distance with no clipping. Very nice in theory, but very consuming.
SkyTurnsRed
Banned
I also have a 560ti and I waver between 25-30 frames.
Edit: I also am willing to accept that it might be time to get a new processor. I'm running a 3 1/2 year old i5 at 3.2 ghz.
That doesn't excuse the fact that you should be able to do background tasks while you play without a severe performance hit with a powerful PC. I can play 64-player BF4 while downloading something on Chrome, Shadowplay activated and someone streaming an HD video from my backup drive without a hitch.
This game still has a serious problem with its CPU optimization that needs to be fixed.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
my card and cpu have got a decent overclock on them. Look around for guides mate, shit is easy.
SkyTurnsRed
Banned
I've never overclocked. Super nervous to. Should I be?
I am running at 1080P, and based on the interviews given before the game came out the devs claimed at 670 could run the game at 60 FPS. Even with the enviornmental quality down to high I am in the low 50's. It was a promise they 100% failed to deliver.
What is Shadowplay?